Order of 6 February 2013

Document Number
148-20130206-ORD-01-00-EN
Document Type
Incidental Proceedings
Date of the Document
Document File
Bilingual Document File

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS

WHALING
IN THE ANTARCTIC

(AUSTRALIA v. JAPAN)

DECLARATION OF INTERVENTION
OF NEW ZEALAND

ORDER OF 6 FEBRUARY 2013

2013

COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS,
AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES

CHASSE À LA BALEINE
DANS L’ANTARCTIQUE

(AUSTRALIE c. JAPON)

DÉDE LA NOUVELLE-ZÉLANDEON

ORDONNANCE DU 6 FÉVRIER 2013

4 CIJ1041.indb 1 3/03/14 10:42 Official citation :
Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan), Declaration
of Intervention of New Zealand, Order of 6 February 2013,
I.C.J. Reports 2013, p. 3

Mode officiel de citation :

Chasse à la baleine dans l’Antarctique (Australie c. Japon), déclaration
d’intervention de la Nouvelle-Zélande, ordonnance du 6 février 2013,
C.I.J. Recueil 2013, p. 3

Sales number
ISSN 0074-4441 N ode vente: 1041
ISBN 978-92-1-071156-2

4 CIJ1041.indb 2 3/03/14 10:42 6 FEBRUARY 2013

ORDER

WHALING IN THE ANTARCTIC

(AUSTRALIA v. JAPAN)

DECLARATION OF INTERVENTION OF NEW ZEALAND

CHASSE À LA BALEINE DANS L’ANTARCTIQUE

(AUSTRALIE c. JAPON)

DÉCLARATION D’INTERVENTION DE LA NOUVELLE-ZÉLANDE

6 FÉVRIER 2013

ORDONNANCE

4 CIJ1041.indb 3 3/03/14 10:42 3

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

YEAR 2013

2013
6 February
General List 6 February 2013
No. 148

WHALING

IN THE ANTARCTIC

(AUSTRALIA v. JAPAN)

DECLARATION OF INTERVENTION
OF NEW ZEALAND

ORDER

Present: President Tomka ; Vice-President Sepúlveda-Amor ; Judges
Owada, Abraham, Keith, Bennouna, Skotnikov, Cançado
Trindade, Yusuf, Greenwoofd, Xue, Gaja, Sebutinde,
Bhandari ;Judge ad hoc Charlesworth ;Registrar Couvreur.

The International Court of Justice,
Composed as above,

After deliberation,

Having regard to Articles 48 and 63 of the Statute of the Court and to
Articles 82, 83, 84 and 86 of the Rules of Court,
Having regard to the Application filed by Australia in the Registry of
the Court on 31 May 2010, whereby Australia instituted proceedings

against Japan in respect of a dispute concerning
“Japan’s continued pursuit of a large-scale program of whaling under
[the Second Phase of its Japanese Whale Research Program under

Special Permit in the Antarctic (‘JARPA II’)], is in breach of
obligations assumed by Japan under the International Convention for
the Regulation of Whaling . . ., as well as its other international
obligations for the preservation of marine mammals and the
marin environment”,

4

4 CIJ1041.indb 4 3/03/14 10:42 4 whaling in the antarcftic (order 6 II 13)

Having regard to the Order of 13 July 2010, whereby the Court fixed
9 May 2011 as the time-limit for the filing of the Memorial of Australia afnd

9 March 2012 as the time-limit for the filing of the Counter-Memorial
of Japan,
Having regard to the Memorial filed by Australia and the Counter-

Memorial filed by Japan within the prescribed time-limits,
Having regard to the decision of the Court, communicated to the Par -
ties on 2 May 2012, not to direct a Reply by Australia and a Rejoinder by

Japan,
Having regard to the notifications addressed by the Registrar on
9 December 2011 to all States parties to the International Convention for f

the Regulation of Whaling, pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 1, of the
Statute of the Court and Article 43, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court ;

Makes the following Order :
1. Whereas, on 20 November 2012, the Government of New Zealand,

referring to Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court, filed in
the Registry of the Court a Declaration of Intervention in the case con -
cerning Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan); whereas the Decla-
ration was accompanied by a document dated 12 November 2012, in
which the Hon. Murray McCully, Minister for Foreign Affairs of New

Zealand, designated Ms Penelope Jane Ridings as Agent and H.E.
Mr. George Robert Furness Troup as Co-Agent ;

2. Whereas, in its Declaration, New Zealand recalls that this Court has

recognized that Article 63 confers a “right” of intervention, where the
State seeking to intervene confines its intervention to the point of intfer -
pretation which is in issue in the proceedings, and that this right doesf not
extend to general intervention in the case ; and whereas New Zealand
underlined that “it does not seek to be a party to the proceedings”f but

confirms that, in accordance with Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute,
“by availing itself of its right to intervene, it accepts that the cofnstruction
given by the judgment in the case will be equally binding upon it” ;
3. Whereas New Zealand formulates the following conclusion :

“On the basis of the information set out above, New Zealand avails

itself of the right conferred upon it by Article 63, paragraph 2, of the
Statute to intervene as a non-party in the proceedings brought by
Australia against Japan in this case” ;

4. Whereas, in accordance with Article 83, paragraph 1, of the Rules of
Court, the Registrar, by letters dated 20 November 2012, transmitted cer-
tified copies of the Declaration of Intervention to the Governments of

Australia and Japan, respectively, which were informed that the Court
had fixed 21 December 2012 as the time-limit for the submission of writ -

5

4 CIJ1041.indb 6 3/03/14 10:42 5 whaling in the antarcftic (order 6 II 13)

ten observations on that Declaration ; and whereas, in accordance with
paragraph 2 of the same Article, the Registrar also transmitted a copy of

the Declaration to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, as well
as to States entitled to appear before the Court ;
5. Whereas Australia and Japan each submitted written observations
within the time-limit thus fixed ; whereas the Registrar transmitted to
each Party a copy of the other’s observations, and copies of the obsefrva -

tions of both Parties to New Zealand ; whereas Australia and New Zea -
land subsequently communicated to the Court their views on certain
statements made by Japan in its above-mentioned observations ; and
whereas the Registrar transmitted to Japan and New Zealand the views
expressed by Australia, and to Japan and Australia those expressed by
New Zealand ;

*
* *

6. Whereas Article 63 of the Statute of the Court provides that :

“1. Whenever the construction of a convention to which States other
than those concerned in the case are parties is in question, the

Registrar shall notify all such States forthwith.
2. Every State so notified has the right to intervene in the proceed -
ings; but if it uses this right, the construction given by the judg -
ment will be equally binding upon it” ;

7. Whereas intervention based on Article63 of the Statute is an incidental
proceedingthat constitutes the exercise of a right (Territorial and Maritime
Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Application by Honduras for Permission to
Intervene, Judgment,I.C.J. Reports 2011 (II), p. 434, para. 36; Continental

Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Application for Permission to Inter -
vene, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1981, p. 15, para. 26 ; Haya de la Torre
(Colombia v. Peru), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 76 ; S.S. “Wimble -
don”, Judgments, 1923, P.C.I.J., Series A, No.1, p. 12); whereas the Court,
when presented with a “declaration” of intervention based on Articfle 63 of

the Statute, is not required to ascertain whether the State which is the author
of that declaration has “an interest of a legal nature” which “may be affected
by the decision [of the Court]” in the main proceedings, as it is oblfiged to do
when it is seised of an “application” for permission to intervene funder Arti -
cle 62 of the Statute; whereas, in accordance with the terms of Article 63 of

the Statute, the limited object of the intervention is to allow a third fState not
party to the proceedings, but party to a convention whose construction ifs in
question in those proceedings, to present to the Court its observations fon
the construction of that convention;
8. Whereas, however, the fact that intervention under Article 63 of the
Statute is of right is not sufficient for the submission of a “declaration” to

that end to confer ipso facto on the declarant State the status of inter -
vener; whereas such right to intervene exists only when the declaration

6

4 CIJ1041.indb 8 3/03/14 10:42 6 whaling in the antarcftic (order 6 II 13)

concerned falls within the provisions of Article 63 ; and whereas, there -
fore, the Court must ensure that such is the case before accepting a decfla-

ration of intervention as admissible (Haya de la Torre (Colombia v.
Peru), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1951, pp. 76-77 ; Military and Paramili -
tary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of
America), Declaration of Intervention, Order of 4 October 1984,
I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 216) ; whereas it also has to verify that the condi -

tions set forth in Article 82 of the Rules of Court are met ;

* *

9. Whereas, in its Declaration, New Zealand, referring to the require -
ment contained in Article 82, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court that a

Declaration of Intervention “shall be filed as soon as possible, and fnot later
than the date fixed for the opening of the oral proceedings”, states that its
Declaration has been filed at the earliest opportunity reasonably open to i;t
and whereas it is established that the Declaration was submitted before fthe
date fixed for the opening of the oral proceedings in the case concernedf ;

10. Whereas, in its Declaration, New Zealand, in accordance with
Article 82, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, states the name of its
Agent and specifies the case and the convention to which the said Decla -
ration relates, namely the case concerning Whaling in the Antarctic (Aus -
tralia v. Japan) brought before the Court on 31 May 2010, and the

International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (hereinafter thef
“Convention”) ;
11. Whereas, in accordance with Article 82, paragraph 2, of the Rules
of Court, a Declaration of Intervention filed under Article 63 of the Stat -
ute shall also contain :

“(a) particulars of the basis on which the declarant State considers
itself a party to the convention ;
(b) identification of the particular provisions of the convention the

construction of which it considers to be in question ;
(c) a statement of the construction of those provisions for which it
contends ;
(d) a list of the documents in support, which documents shall be
attached” ;

12. Whereas, in its Declaration, referring to the particulars as provided
for in Article 82, paragraph 2 (a), of the Rules of Court, New Zealand

states that it first deposited its instrument of ratification to the Confven -
tion, in accordance with ArticleX, paragraph1, thereof, on 2August 1949;
that it later gave notice of its withdrawal from the Convention, in accofr -
dance with Article XI, effective 30 June 1969; and that it finally gave
notice of its adherence to the Convention, in accordance with Article X,
paragraph 2, on 15 June 1976, with effect from that date ;

13. Whereas, in its Declaration, referring to the provisions to be indi -
cated under Article 82, paragraph 2 (b), of the Rules of Court, New Zea -

7

4 CIJ1041.indb 10 3/03/14 10:42 7 whaling in the antarcftic (order 6 II 13)

land submits that the construction of Article VIII of the Convention, and
in particular paragraph 1 thereof, is in question in the case ; and whereas

it recalls that said Article VIII of the Convention reads as follows :
“1. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention, any

Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a spe-
cial permit authorizing that national to kill, take, and treat whales
for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as
to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting
Government thinks fit, and the killing, taking, and treating of

whales in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be
exempt from the operation of this Convention. Each Contracting
Government shall report at once to the Commission all such
authorizations which it has granted. Each Contracting Govern -
ment may at any time revoke any such special permit which it has
granted.

2. Any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as prac-
ticable be processed and the proceeds shall be dealt with in
accordance with directions issued by the Government by which
the permit was granted.

3. Each Contracting Government shall transmit to such body as
may be designated by the Commission, insofar as practicable, and
at intervals of not more than one year, scientific information
available to that Government with respect to whales and whaling,
including the results of research conducted pursuant to para -

graph 1 of this Article and to Article IV.

4. Recognizing that continuous collection and analysis of biological
data in connection with the operations of factory ships and land
stations are indispensable to sound and constructive management
of the whale fisheries, the Contracting Governments will take all

practicable measures to obtain such data” ;

14. Whereas, in its Declaration, referring to the statement as provided f
for in Article 82, paragraph 2 (c), of the Rules of Court, New Zealand
states that, because Article VIII of the Convention specifies that a special
permit may authorize whaling only “for purposes of scientific researcfh”,
it follows that whaling for other purposes is not permitted under Arti -

cle VIII, even if such whaling involves the collection of certain scientificf
data; whereas New Zealand contends that whether a programme of whal -
ing is for “purposes of scientific research” is not a matter of unfilateral
determination, but rather must be capable of being established on the
basis of an objective assessment ; whereas New Zealand contends that a
Contracting Government must be able to demonstrate that it has limited

the number of whales killed under special permit to the minimum level
that is both necessary for, and proportionate to, the objectives of the f

8

4 CIJ1041.indb 12 3/03/14 10:42 8 whaling in the antarcftic (order 6 II 13)

research and that will have no adverse “effect on the conservation of the
stock”; whereas New Zealand emphasizes that the substantive constraints

in Article VIII are reflected in procedural terms through paragraph 30 of
the Schedule to the Convention, which obliges Contracting Governments
to submit in advance any proposed special permits to the Scientific Com -
mittee set up by the International Whaling Commission to enable that
Committee to review and comment on the “objectives of research”, tfhe
“number, sex, size and stock” to be taken, and the “possible efffect on

conservation of stock” ; and whereas, according to New Zealand, that
obligation gives rise to a duty of meaningful co-operation, requiring the
Contracting Government both to seek and to take account of the views
and interests of other parties before issuing or renewing a special permfit;

15. Whereas, in accordance with Article 82, paragraph 2 (d), of the
Rules of Court, New Zealand provides a list of documents in support of
its Declaration, which are attached thereto ;

*

16. Whereas, in its written observations, Australia indicates that it
considers that New Zealand’s Declaration of Intervention fulfils the f

requirements set out in Article 63 of the Statute and Article 82 of the
Rules and is therefore admissible ;
17. Whereas, in its written observations, Japan, while it does not object
to the admissibility of New Zealand’s Declaration of Intervention, drfaws
the Court’s attention to “certain serious anomalies that would arise from
the admission of New Zealand as an intervenor” ; whereas Japan empha -

sizes the need to ensure the equality of the Parties before the Court inf
light of the Joint Media Release dated 15 December 2010 of the Foreign
Ministers of Australia and New Zealand ; whereas Japan moreover
expresses its concern that Australia and New Zealand could “avoid somfe
of the safeguards of procedural equality under the Statute and Rules of f

the Court”, including Article 31, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Court
and Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, which exclude the
possibility of appointing a judge ad hoc when two or more parties are in
the same interest and there is a Member of the Court of the nationality fof
any one of those parties ; and whereas Japan, in light of the above,

requests, first, that the Parties be given an opportunity to respond in fwrit-
ing to the written observations that New Zealand may present in accor -
dance with Article 86, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, secondly, that
the time to be allocated to New Zealand in the oral proceedings on the
merits “should be significantly less than in the case of interventionf under
Article 62” and, thirdly, that adequate time be given to Japan to prepare

for these oral proceedings, both in the first and the second round ;

* *

9

4 CIJ1041.indb 14 3/03/14 10:42 9 whaling in the antarcftic (order 6 II 13)

18. Whereas the concerns expressed by Japan relate to certain proce -
dural issues regarding the equality of the Parties to the dispute, rathefr

than to the conditions for admissibility of the Declaration of Interven -
tion, as set out in Article 63 of the Statute and Article 82 of the Rules of
Court; whereas intervention under Article 63 of the Statute is limited to
submitting observations on the construction of the convention in ques -
tion and does not allow the intervenor, which does not become a party tof
the proceedings, to deal with any other aspect of the case before the

Court; and whereas such an intervention cannot affect the equality of the
Parties to the dispute ;
19. Whereas New Zealand has met the requirements set out in Article82
of the Rules of Court ; whereas its Declaration of Intervention falls within
the provisions of Article 63 of the Statute ; whereas, moreover, the Parties

raised no objection to the admissibility of the Declaration; and whereas it
follows that New Zealand’s Declaration of Intervention is admissible;
20. Whereas, in exercising its right to intervene in the case, New Zea -
land will be bound, under Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute, by the
construction of the Convention given by the Court in its judgment ;

* *
21. Whereas the question of the participation in the case of the judge

ad hoc chosen by Australia was referred to by the Respondent in the con -
text of the latter’s discussion of the equality of the Parties before the
Court; whereas the Court considers that it must make clear in the present
Order that, since the intervention of New Zealand does not confer upon
it the status of party to the proceedings, Australia and New Zealand can -
not be regarded as being “parties in the same interest” within thef meaning

of Article 31, paragraph 5, of the Statute ; whereas, consequently, the
presence on the Bench of a judge of the nationality of the intervening
State has no effect on the right of the judge ad hoc chosen by the Appli -
cant to sit in the case pursuant to Article 31, paragraph 2, of the Statute ;

* *

22. Whereas copies of the pleadings and documents annexed, as filed
in the case at present, have already been communicated to New Zealand,
on its request, pursuant to Article 53, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court ;

whereas, pursuant to Article 86 of the Rules of Court, it is necessary to fix
the time-limit for the filing of written observations of New Zealand with
respect to the subject-matter of the intervention ; and whereas the Court,
taking into account the request expressed by Japan that the Parties be
given an opportunity to file written observations on those written obserf -
vations filed by New Zealand, and considering the circumstances of the

case, finds that the request should be granted ;

*
* *

10

4 CIJ1041.indb 16 3/03/14 10:42 10 whaling in the antarcftic (order 6 II 13)

23. For these reasons,

The Court,

(1) Unanimously,

Decides that the Declaration of Intervention filed by New Zealand,
pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute, is admissible ;

(2) Unanimously,

Fixes 4 April 2013 as the time-limit for the filing by New Zealand of the
written observations referred to in Article 86, paragraph 1, of the Rules
of Court ;

(3) Unanimously,

Authorizes the filing by Australia and Japan of written observations on
these written observations of New Zealand and fixes 31 May 2013 as the
time-limit for such filing ;

Reserves the subsequent procedure for further decision.

Done in English and in French, the English text being authoritative, at f
the Peace Palace, The Hague, this sixth day of February, two thousand
and thirteen, in four copies, one of which will be placed in the archivefs of
the Court and the others transmitted to the Government of Australia, the
Government of Japan and the Government of New Zealand, respectively.

(Signed) Peter Tomka,
President.

(Signed) Philippe Couvreur,

Registrar.

Judge Owada appends a declaration to the Order of the Court ; Judge
Cançado Trindade appends a separate opinion to the Order of the
Court ; JudgeGaja appends a declaration to the Order of the Court.

(Initialled) P.T.
(Initialled) Ph.C.

11

4 CIJ1041.indb 18 3/03/14 10:42

Bilingual Content

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS

WHALING
IN THE ANTARCTIC

(AUSTRALIA v. JAPAN)

DECLARATION OF INTERVENTION
OF NEW ZEALAND

ORDER OF 6 FEBRUARY 2013

2013

COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS,
AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES

CHASSE À LA BALEINE
DANS L’ANTARCTIQUE

(AUSTRALIE c. JAPON)

DÉDE LA NOUVELLE-ZÉLANDEON

ORDONNANCE DU 6 FÉVRIER 2013

4 CIJ1041.indb 1 3/03/14 10:42 Official citation :
Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan), Declaration
of Intervention of New Zealand, Order of 6 February 2013,
I.C.J. Reports 2013, p. 3

Mode officiel de citation :

Chasse à la baleine dans l’Antarctique (Australie c. Japon), déclaration
d’intervention de la Nouvelle-Zélande, ordonnance du 6 février 2013,
C.I.J. Recueil 2013, p. 3

Sales number
ISSN 0074-4441 N ode vente: 1041
ISBN 978-92-1-071156-2

4 CIJ1041.indb 2 3/03/14 10:42 6 FEBRUARY 2013

ORDER

WHALING IN THE ANTARCTIC

(AUSTRALIA v. JAPAN)

DECLARATION OF INTERVENTION OF NEW ZEALAND

CHASSE À LA BALEINE DANS L’ANTARCTIQUE

(AUSTRALIE c. JAPON)

DÉCLARATION D’INTERVENTION DE LA NOUVELLE-ZÉLANDE

6 FÉVRIER 2013

ORDONNANCE

4 CIJ1041.indb 3 3/03/14 10:42 3

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

YEAR 2013

2013
6 February
General List 6 February 2013
No. 148

WHALING

IN THE ANTARCTIC

(AUSTRALIA v. JAPAN)

DECLARATION OF INTERVENTION
OF NEW ZEALAND

ORDER

Present: President Tomka ; Vice-President Sepúlveda-Amor ; Judges
Owada, Abraham, Keith, Bennouna, Skotnikov, Cançado
Trindade, Yusuf, Greenwoofd, Xue, Gaja, Sebutinde,
Bhandari ;Judge ad hoc Charlesworth ;Registrar Couvreur.

The International Court of Justice,
Composed as above,

After deliberation,

Having regard to Articles 48 and 63 of the Statute of the Court and to
Articles 82, 83, 84 and 86 of the Rules of Court,
Having regard to the Application filed by Australia in the Registry of
the Court on 31 May 2010, whereby Australia instituted proceedings

against Japan in respect of a dispute concerning
“Japan’s continued pursuit of a large-scale program of whaling under
[the Second Phase of its Japanese Whale Research Program under

Special Permit in the Antarctic (‘JARPA II’)], is in breach of
obligations assumed by Japan under the International Convention for
the Regulation of Whaling . . ., as well as its other international
obligations for the preservation of marine mammals and the
marin environment”,

4

4 CIJ1041.indb 4 3/03/14 10:42 3

COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

ANNÉE 2013
2013
6 février
6 février 2013 Rôle général
n 148

CHASSE À LA BALEINE

DANS L’ANTARCTIQUE

(AUSTRALIE c. JAPON)

DÉCLARATION D’INTERVENTION

DE LA NOUVELLE-ZÉLANDE

ORDONNANCE

Présents : M. Tomka, président ; M. Sepúlveda-Amor, vice-président ;
MM. Owada, Abraham, Keith, Bennouna, Skotnikov,
Cançado Trindade, Yusuf, Greenwood, M me Xue, M. Gaja,
M me Sebutinde, M. Bhandari, juges ; M me Charlesworth,

juge ad hoc ; M. Couvreur, greffier.

La Cour internationale de Justice,

Ainsi composée,
Après délibéré en chambre du conseil,

Vu les articles 48 et 63 du Statut de la Cour et les articles 82, 83, 84
et 86 de son Règlement,

Vu la requête enregistrée au Greffe de la Cour le 3mai 2010, par
laquelle l’Australie a introduit une instance contre le Japon au sujeft d’un
différend concernant

«la poursuite de l’exécution par le Japon d’un vaste programme dfe
chasse à la baleine dans le cadre de la deuxième phase du programmfe
japonais de recherche scientifique sur les baleines dans l’Antarctiqufe
au titre d’un permis spécial JARPA II »), en violation tant des

obligations contractées par cet Etat aux termes de la convention
internationale pour la réglementation de la chasse à la baleine … que
d’autres obligations internationales relatives à la préservatiofn des
mammifères marins et de l’environnement marin »,

4

4 CIJ1041.indb 5 3/03/14 10:42 4 whaling in the antarcftic (order 6 II 13)

Having regard to the Order of 13 July 2010, whereby the Court fixed
9 May 2011 as the time-limit for the filing of the Memorial of Australia afnd

9 March 2012 as the time-limit for the filing of the Counter-Memorial
of Japan,
Having regard to the Memorial filed by Australia and the Counter-

Memorial filed by Japan within the prescribed time-limits,
Having regard to the decision of the Court, communicated to the Par -
ties on 2 May 2012, not to direct a Reply by Australia and a Rejoinder by

Japan,
Having regard to the notifications addressed by the Registrar on
9 December 2011 to all States parties to the International Convention for f

the Regulation of Whaling, pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 1, of the
Statute of the Court and Article 43, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court ;

Makes the following Order :
1. Whereas, on 20 November 2012, the Government of New Zealand,

referring to Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court, filed in
the Registry of the Court a Declaration of Intervention in the case con -
cerning Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan); whereas the Decla-
ration was accompanied by a document dated 12 November 2012, in
which the Hon. Murray McCully, Minister for Foreign Affairs of New

Zealand, designated Ms Penelope Jane Ridings as Agent and H.E.
Mr. George Robert Furness Troup as Co-Agent ;

2. Whereas, in its Declaration, New Zealand recalls that this Court has

recognized that Article 63 confers a “right” of intervention, where the
State seeking to intervene confines its intervention to the point of intfer -
pretation which is in issue in the proceedings, and that this right doesf not
extend to general intervention in the case ; and whereas New Zealand
underlined that “it does not seek to be a party to the proceedings”f but

confirms that, in accordance with Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute,
“by availing itself of its right to intervene, it accepts that the cofnstruction
given by the judgment in the case will be equally binding upon it” ;
3. Whereas New Zealand formulates the following conclusion :

“On the basis of the information set out above, New Zealand avails

itself of the right conferred upon it by Article 63, paragraph 2, of the
Statute to intervene as a non-party in the proceedings brought by
Australia against Japan in this case” ;

4. Whereas, in accordance with Article 83, paragraph 1, of the Rules of
Court, the Registrar, by letters dated 20 November 2012, transmitted cer-
tified copies of the Declaration of Intervention to the Governments of

Australia and Japan, respectively, which were informed that the Court
had fixed 21 December 2012 as the time-limit for the submission of writ -

5

4 CIJ1041.indb 6 3/03/14 10:42 chasse à la baleine dfans l’antarctique (orfdonnance 6 II 13) 4

Vu l’ordonnance du 13 juillet 2010, par laquelle la Cour a fixé au

9 mai 2011 la date d’expiration du délai pour le dépôt du mémoifre de
l’Australie et au 9 mars 2012 celle du délai pour le dépôt du contre-
mémoire du Japon,

Vu le mémoire de l’Australie et le contre-mémoire du Japon, tous deux
déposés dans les délais impartis,
Vu la décision de la Cour, communiquée aux Parties le 2 mai 2012, de

ne pas prescrire le dépôt d’une réplique par l’Australie fet d’une duplique
par le Japon,
Vu les notifications adressées le 9 décembre 2011 par le greffier à tous

les Etats parties à la convention internationale pour la réglementfation de
la chasse à la baleine, conformément au paragraphe 1 de l’article 63 du
Statut de la Cour et au paragraphe 1 de l’article 43 de son Règlement ;

Rend l’ordonnance suivante :

1. Considérant que, le 20 novembre 2012, le Gouvernement de la
Nouvelle-Zélande, se fondant sur le paragraphe 2 de l’article 63 du Statut
de la Cour, a déposé au Greffe de la Cour une déclaration d’fintervention
en l’affaire relative à la Chasse à la baleine dans l’Antarctique (Australie

c. Japon) ; et que la déclaration était accompagnée d’un document datéf
du 12 novembre 2012 par lequel le ministre des affaires étrangères de la
Nouvelle-Zélande, M. Murray McCully, désignait M me Penelope
Jane Ridings en qualité d’agent et S. Exc. M. George Robert Furness

Troup en qualité de coagent ;
2. Considérant que la Nouvelle-Zélande, dans sa déclaration, rappelle
que la présente Cour a reconnu que l’article 63 confère un « droit» d’in-
tervention, lorsque l’Etat concerné limite son intervention à lfa question
d’interprétation qui se pose dans l’affaire en cause et que ce droit n’auto -

rise pas une intervention générale en l’affaire ; et que la Nouvelle-Zélande
souligne qu’elle « ne souhaite pas devenir partie à l’instance », mais
confirme que, conformément à l’article 63, paragraphe 2, du Statut, « en
se prévalant de son droit d’intervenir, elle accepte comme égalfement obli-

gatoire à son égard l’interprétation que contiendra l’arrfêt en l’espèce»;
3. Considérant que la Nouvelle-Zélande formule la conclusion sui -
vante :

«Au vu de ces éléments, la Nouvelle-Zélande entend se prévaloir
de son droit d’intervention en vertu du paragraphe 2 de l’article 63

du Statut, en tant que non-partie à l’affaire portée devant la Cour
par l’Australie à l’encontre du Japon »;

4. Considérant que, conformément au paragraphe 1 de l’article 83 du
Règlement de la Cour, le greffier, sous le couvert de lettres en datfe du
20 novembre 2012, a transmis une copie certifiée conforme de la déclara -
tion d’intervention aux Gouvernements de l’Australie et du Japon, fles

informant que la Cour avait fixé au 21 décembre 2012 la date d’expiration

5

4 CIJ1041.indb 7 3/03/14 10:42 5 whaling in the antarcftic (order 6 II 13)

ten observations on that Declaration ; and whereas, in accordance with
paragraph 2 of the same Article, the Registrar also transmitted a copy of

the Declaration to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, as well
as to States entitled to appear before the Court ;
5. Whereas Australia and Japan each submitted written observations
within the time-limit thus fixed ; whereas the Registrar transmitted to
each Party a copy of the other’s observations, and copies of the obsefrva -

tions of both Parties to New Zealand ; whereas Australia and New Zea -
land subsequently communicated to the Court their views on certain
statements made by Japan in its above-mentioned observations ; and
whereas the Registrar transmitted to Japan and New Zealand the views
expressed by Australia, and to Japan and Australia those expressed by
New Zealand ;

*
* *

6. Whereas Article 63 of the Statute of the Court provides that :

“1. Whenever the construction of a convention to which States other
than those concerned in the case are parties is in question, the

Registrar shall notify all such States forthwith.
2. Every State so notified has the right to intervene in the proceed -
ings; but if it uses this right, the construction given by the judg -
ment will be equally binding upon it” ;

7. Whereas intervention based on Article63 of the Statute is an incidental
proceedingthat constitutes the exercise of a right (Territorial and Maritime
Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Application by Honduras for Permission to
Intervene, Judgment,I.C.J. Reports 2011 (II), p. 434, para. 36; Continental

Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Application for Permission to Inter -
vene, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1981, p. 15, para. 26 ; Haya de la Torre
(Colombia v. Peru), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 76 ; S.S. “Wimble -
don”, Judgments, 1923, P.C.I.J., Series A, No.1, p. 12); whereas the Court,
when presented with a “declaration” of intervention based on Articfle 63 of

the Statute, is not required to ascertain whether the State which is the author
of that declaration has “an interest of a legal nature” which “may be affected
by the decision [of the Court]” in the main proceedings, as it is oblfiged to do
when it is seised of an “application” for permission to intervene funder Arti -
cle 62 of the Statute; whereas, in accordance with the terms of Article 63 of

the Statute, the limited object of the intervention is to allow a third fState not
party to the proceedings, but party to a convention whose construction ifs in
question in those proceedings, to present to the Court its observations fon
the construction of that convention;
8. Whereas, however, the fact that intervention under Article 63 of the
Statute is of right is not sufficient for the submission of a “declaration” to

that end to confer ipso facto on the declarant State the status of inter -
vener; whereas such right to intervene exists only when the declaration

6

4 CIJ1041.indb 8 3/03/14 10:42 chasse à la baleine dfans l’antarctique (orfdonnance 6 II 13) 5

du délai pour la présentation d’observations écrites sur la fdéclaration ; et

que, conformément au paragraphe 2 du même article, il a également
transmis copie de la déclaration au Secrétaire général de l’Organisation
des Nations Unies, ainsi qu’aux Etats admis à ester devant la Cour ;
5. Considérant que l’Australie et le Japon ont tous deux soumis des
observations écrites dans le délai ainsi fixé ; que le greffier a transmis à

chacune des Parties copie des observations soumises par l’autre, et à la
Nouvelle-Zélande, copie des observations soumises par les deux Parties ;
considérant que l’Australie et la Nouvelle-Zélande ont par la suite com -
muniqué à la Cour leurs vues sur certaines déclarations faites fpar le Japon
dans ses observations susmentionnées ; et que le greffier a transmis au

Japon et à la Nouvelle-Zélande les vues ainsi exprimées par l’Australie, et
au Japon et à l’Australie celles exprimées par la Nouvelle-Zélande ;

* * *

6. Considérant qu’aux termes de l’article 63 du Statut de la Cour :

«1. Lorsqu’il s’agit de l’interprétation d’une convention àf laquelle ont
participé d’autres Etats que les parties en litige, le Greffier lfes
avertit sans délai.
2. Chacun d’eux a le droit d’intervenir au procès et, s’il exerfce cette
faculté, l’interprétation contenue dans la sentence est égalfement

obligatoire à son égard »;
7. Considérant que l’intervention fondée sur l’article 63 du Statut est

une procédure incidente qui constitue l’exercice d’un droit (Différend ter -
ritorial et maritime (Nicaragua c. Colombie), requête du Honduras à fin
d’intervention, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2011 (II), p. 434, par. 36; Plateau
continental (Tunisie/Jamahiriya arabe libyenne), requête à fin d▯’interven -
tion, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1981, p. 15, par. 26; Haya de la Torre (Colombie

c. Pérou), arrêt, C.I.J. Rocueil 1951, p. 76 ; Vapeur Wimbledon, arrêts,
1923, C.P.J.I. série A n 1, p. 12) ; que la Cour n’a pas, lorsqu’elle est
destinataire d’une « déclaration» d’intervention fondée sur l’article 63 du
Statut, à rechercher si l’Etat qui en est l’auteur possède «ufn intérêt d’ordre
juridique» qui est « pour lui en cause » dans la procédure principale,

comme elle est tenue de le faire quand elle est saisie d’une « requête» la
priant d’autoriser une intervention au titre de l’article 62 du Statut ; que,
dans les cas relevant de l’article 63 du Statut, l’objet limité de l’interven -
tion est de permettre à un Etat tiers au procès, mais partie à fune conven-
tion dont l’interprétation est en cause dans celui-ci, de présenter à la Cour

ses observations sur l’interprétation de ladite convention ;

8. Considérant cependant qu’il ne suffit pas que l’intervention afu titre de
l’article 63 du Statut soit de droit pour que la présentation d’une «déclara -
tion» à cet effet confère ipso facto à l’Etat dont elle émane la qualité d’in -

tervenant; qu’un tel droit à intervenir n’existe en effet que pour autfant que

6

4 CIJ1041.indb 9 3/03/14 10:42 6 whaling in the antarcftic (order 6 II 13)

concerned falls within the provisions of Article 63 ; and whereas, there -
fore, the Court must ensure that such is the case before accepting a decfla-

ration of intervention as admissible (Haya de la Torre (Colombia v.
Peru), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1951, pp. 76-77 ; Military and Paramili -
tary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of
America), Declaration of Intervention, Order of 4 October 1984,
I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 216) ; whereas it also has to verify that the condi -

tions set forth in Article 82 of the Rules of Court are met ;

* *

9. Whereas, in its Declaration, New Zealand, referring to the require -
ment contained in Article 82, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court that a

Declaration of Intervention “shall be filed as soon as possible, and fnot later
than the date fixed for the opening of the oral proceedings”, states that its
Declaration has been filed at the earliest opportunity reasonably open to i;t
and whereas it is established that the Declaration was submitted before fthe
date fixed for the opening of the oral proceedings in the case concernedf ;

10. Whereas, in its Declaration, New Zealand, in accordance with
Article 82, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, states the name of its
Agent and specifies the case and the convention to which the said Decla -
ration relates, namely the case concerning Whaling in the Antarctic (Aus -
tralia v. Japan) brought before the Court on 31 May 2010, and the

International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (hereinafter thef
“Convention”) ;
11. Whereas, in accordance with Article 82, paragraph 2, of the Rules
of Court, a Declaration of Intervention filed under Article 63 of the Stat -
ute shall also contain :

“(a) particulars of the basis on which the declarant State considers
itself a party to the convention ;
(b) identification of the particular provisions of the convention the

construction of which it considers to be in question ;
(c) a statement of the construction of those provisions for which it
contends ;
(d) a list of the documents in support, which documents shall be
attached” ;

12. Whereas, in its Declaration, referring to the particulars as provided
for in Article 82, paragraph 2 (a), of the Rules of Court, New Zealand

states that it first deposited its instrument of ratification to the Confven -
tion, in accordance with ArticleX, paragraph1, thereof, on 2August 1949;
that it later gave notice of its withdrawal from the Convention, in accofr -
dance with Article XI, effective 30 June 1969; and that it finally gave
notice of its adherence to the Convention, in accordance with Article X,
paragraph 2, on 15 June 1976, with effect from that date ;

13. Whereas, in its Declaration, referring to the provisions to be indi -
cated under Article 82, paragraph 2 (b), of the Rules of Court, New Zea -

7

4 CIJ1041.indb 10 3/03/14 10:42 chasse à la baleine dfans l’antarctique (orfdonnance 6 II 13) 6

la déclaration considérée entre dans les prévisions de l’farticle 63; et que la
Cour doit en conséquence s’assurer que tel est le cas avant d’accueillir une

déclaration d’intervention comme recevable (Haya de la Torre (Colombie
c. Pérou), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1951, p. 76-77 ; Activités militaires et para-
militaires au Nicaragua et contre celui-ci (Nicaragua c. Etats-Unis d’Amé -
rique), déclaration d’intervention, ordonnance du 4 octobre 1984, C.I.J.
Recueil 1984, p. 216); et qu’il lui incombe également de vérifier que les

conditions énoncées à l’article 82 du Règlement sont réunies;

* *

9. Considérant que la Nouvelle-Zélande, se référant au paragraphe 1
de l’article 82 du Règlement, qui exige que la déclaration d’intervention

soit « déposée le plus tôt possible avant la date fixée pour l’ofuverture de
la procédure orale », affirme dans sa déclaration avoir présenté celle-ci à
la première occasion s’offrant raisonnablement à elle ; et qu’il est constant
que la déclaration a été présentée avant la date fixéef pour l’ouverture de
la procédure orale dans l’affaire concernée ;

10. Considérant que, dans sa déclaration, la Nouvelle-Zélande, confor -
mément au paragraphe 2 de l’article 82 du Règlement, indique le nom de
son agent et précise l’affaire et la convention concernées pafr ladite décla -
ration, à savoir l’affaire relative à la Chasse à la baleine dans l’Antarctique
(Australie c. Japon), soumise à la Cour le 31 mai 2010, et la convention

internationale pour la réglementation de la chasse à la baleine (ci-après la
« convention ») ;
11. Considérant que, aux termes du paragraphe 2 de l’article 82 du
Règlement, la déclaration d’intervention déposée au titref de l’article 63 du
Statut doit également contenir :

«a) des renseignements spécifiant sur quelle base l’Etat déclarant fse
considère comme partie à la convention ;
b) l’indication des dispositions de la convention dont il estime que

l’interprétation est en cause ;
c) un exposé de l’interprétation qu’il donne de ces dispositionfs;

d) un bordereau des documents à l’appui, qui sont annexés »;

12. Considérant que, s’agissant des renseignements visés à l’falinéa a)
du paragraphe 2 de l’article 82 du Règlement, la Nouvelle-Zélande précise

dans sa déclaration qu’elle a d’abord déposé son instrumefnt de ratifica -
tion de la convention, en conformité avec le paragraphe 1 de l’artficle X de
celle-ci, le 2 août 1949 ; qu’elle a ensuite émis une notification de retrait
fondée sur l’article XI, avec effet au 30 juin 1969 ; et qu’elle a enfin émis
une notification d’adhésion, en conformité avec le paragraphe 2 de l’ar -
ticle X, le 15 juin 1976, avec effet immédiat ;

13. Considérant que, s’agissant des indications requises à l’alifnéa b) du
paragraphe 2 de l’article 82 du Règlement, la Nouvelle-Zélande soutient

7

4 CIJ1041.indb 11 3/03/14 10:42 7 whaling in the antarcftic (order 6 II 13)

land submits that the construction of Article VIII of the Convention, and
in particular paragraph 1 thereof, is in question in the case ; and whereas

it recalls that said Article VIII of the Convention reads as follows :
“1. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention, any

Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a spe-
cial permit authorizing that national to kill, take, and treat whales
for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as
to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting
Government thinks fit, and the killing, taking, and treating of

whales in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be
exempt from the operation of this Convention. Each Contracting
Government shall report at once to the Commission all such
authorizations which it has granted. Each Contracting Govern -
ment may at any time revoke any such special permit which it has
granted.

2. Any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as prac-
ticable be processed and the proceeds shall be dealt with in
accordance with directions issued by the Government by which
the permit was granted.

3. Each Contracting Government shall transmit to such body as
may be designated by the Commission, insofar as practicable, and
at intervals of not more than one year, scientific information
available to that Government with respect to whales and whaling,
including the results of research conducted pursuant to para -

graph 1 of this Article and to Article IV.

4. Recognizing that continuous collection and analysis of biological
data in connection with the operations of factory ships and land
stations are indispensable to sound and constructive management
of the whale fisheries, the Contracting Governments will take all

practicable measures to obtain such data” ;

14. Whereas, in its Declaration, referring to the statement as provided f
for in Article 82, paragraph 2 (c), of the Rules of Court, New Zealand
states that, because Article VIII of the Convention specifies that a special
permit may authorize whaling only “for purposes of scientific researcfh”,
it follows that whaling for other purposes is not permitted under Arti -

cle VIII, even if such whaling involves the collection of certain scientificf
data; whereas New Zealand contends that whether a programme of whal -
ing is for “purposes of scientific research” is not a matter of unfilateral
determination, but rather must be capable of being established on the
basis of an objective assessment ; whereas New Zealand contends that a
Contracting Government must be able to demonstrate that it has limited

the number of whales killed under special permit to the minimum level
that is both necessary for, and proportionate to, the objectives of the f

8

4 CIJ1041.indb 12 3/03/14 10:42 chasse à la baleine dfans l’antarctique (orfdonnance 6 II 13) 7

dans sa déclaration que l’interprétation de l’article VIII de la convention,
et en particulier de son paragraphe 1, est en cause ; et qu’elle rappelle que

l’article VIII de la convention est ainsi libellé :
«1. Nonobstant toute disposition contraire de la présente Conven -

tion, chaque Gouvernement contractant pourra accorder à ses
ressortissants un permis spécial autorisant l’intéressé àf tuer, cap -
turer et traiter des baleines en vue de recherches scientifiques,
ladite autorisation pouvant être subordonnée aux restrictions, en
ce qui concerne le nombre, et à telles autres conditions que le

Gouvernement contractant jugera opportunes ; dans ce cas, les
baleines pourront être tuées, capturées ou traitées sans qu’fil y ait
lieu de se conformer aux dispositions de la présente Convention.
Chaque Gouvernement contractant devra porter immédiatement
à la connaissance de la Commission toutes les autorisations de
cette nature qu’il aura accordées. Un Gouvernement contractant

pourra annuler à tout moment un permis spécial par lui accordé.f
2. Dans toute la mesure du possible, les baleines capturées en vertu de
ces permis spéciaux devront être traitées conformément aux dfirec -
tives formulées par le Gouvernement qui aura délivré le permis, le-s
quelles s’appliqueront également à l’utilisation des produits obtenus.

3. Dans toute la mesure du possible, chaque Gouvernement contrac -
tant devra transmettre à l’organisme que la Commission pourra
désigner à cet effet, à des intervalles d’un an au maximumf, les
renseignements de caractère scientifique dont il disposera sur les
baleines et la chasse à la baleine, y compris les résultats des

recherches effectuées en application du paragraphe 1 du présent
article et de l’article IV.
4. Reconnaissant qu’il est indispensable, pour assurer une gestion
saine et profitable de l’industrie baleinière, de rassembler et d’fana -
lyser constamment les renseignements biologiques recueillis à
l’occasion des opérations des usines flottantes et des stations fter -

restres, les Gouvernements contractants prendront toutes les
mesures en leur pouvoir pour se procurer ces renseignements »;

14. Considérant que, s’agissant de l’exposé visé à l’alinéa c) du para -
graphe 2 de l’article 82 du Règlement, la Nouvelle-Zélande fait valoir dans
sa déclaration que, puisque l’article VIII de la convention précise que la
chasse à la baleine ne peut être autorisée en vertu d’un perfmis spécial
qu’«en vue de recherches scientifiques», il s’ensuit que, lorsqu’elle est pra -

tiquée à d’autres fins, cette chasse n’est pas autorisée fpar cet article, même
si certaines données scientifiques sont recueillies à cette occasifon ; qu’elle
soutient que la question de savoir si un programme de chasse à la balfeine
a été conçu « en vue de recherches scientifiques » ne saurait être tranchée
unilatéralement mais doit l’être à l’issue d’une évfaluation objectiv;equ’elle
avance que le gouvernement contractant doit être en mesure de démofntrer

qu’il a limité le nombre de baleines tuées en vertu d’un perfmis spécial au
minimum indispensable, c’est-à-dire à un niveau proportionné à la réalisa -

8

4 CIJ1041.indb 13 3/03/14 10:42 8 whaling in the antarcftic (order 6 II 13)

research and that will have no adverse “effect on the conservation of the
stock”; whereas New Zealand emphasizes that the substantive constraints

in Article VIII are reflected in procedural terms through paragraph 30 of
the Schedule to the Convention, which obliges Contracting Governments
to submit in advance any proposed special permits to the Scientific Com -
mittee set up by the International Whaling Commission to enable that
Committee to review and comment on the “objectives of research”, tfhe
“number, sex, size and stock” to be taken, and the “possible efffect on

conservation of stock” ; and whereas, according to New Zealand, that
obligation gives rise to a duty of meaningful co-operation, requiring the
Contracting Government both to seek and to take account of the views
and interests of other parties before issuing or renewing a special permfit;

15. Whereas, in accordance with Article 82, paragraph 2 (d), of the
Rules of Court, New Zealand provides a list of documents in support of
its Declaration, which are attached thereto ;

*

16. Whereas, in its written observations, Australia indicates that it
considers that New Zealand’s Declaration of Intervention fulfils the f

requirements set out in Article 63 of the Statute and Article 82 of the
Rules and is therefore admissible ;
17. Whereas, in its written observations, Japan, while it does not object
to the admissibility of New Zealand’s Declaration of Intervention, drfaws
the Court’s attention to “certain serious anomalies that would arise from
the admission of New Zealand as an intervenor” ; whereas Japan empha -

sizes the need to ensure the equality of the Parties before the Court inf
light of the Joint Media Release dated 15 December 2010 of the Foreign
Ministers of Australia and New Zealand ; whereas Japan moreover
expresses its concern that Australia and New Zealand could “avoid somfe
of the safeguards of procedural equality under the Statute and Rules of f

the Court”, including Article 31, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Court
and Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, which exclude the
possibility of appointing a judge ad hoc when two or more parties are in
the same interest and there is a Member of the Court of the nationality fof
any one of those parties ; and whereas Japan, in light of the above,

requests, first, that the Parties be given an opportunity to respond in fwrit-
ing to the written observations that New Zealand may present in accor -
dance with Article 86, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, secondly, that
the time to be allocated to New Zealand in the oral proceedings on the
merits “should be significantly less than in the case of interventionf under
Article 62” and, thirdly, that adequate time be given to Japan to prepare

for these oral proceedings, both in the first and the second round ;

* *

9

4 CIJ1041.indb 14 3/03/14 10:42 chasse à la baleine dfans l’antarctique (orfdonnance 6 II 13) 8

tion des objectifs de ses recherches et tel qu’il « ne soit pas porté préjudice
à la conservation des stocks »; qu’elle souligne que les exigences de fond

formulées à l’article VIII se reflètent dans les règles de procédure énoncéesf
au paragraphe 30 du règlement annexé à la convention, qui fait obligation
aux gouvernements contractants de soumettre au préalable toute proposi -
tion de permis spécial au comité scientifique établi par la Commission
baleinière internationale, afin que celui-ci puisse examiner et commenter
«les objectifs de la recherche », «le nombre, le sexe, la taille et la popula -

tion» des cétacés dont la capture est prévue, ainsi que « les effets éventuels
sur la conservation de la population concernée »; et que, selon elle, cette
obligation engendre un devoir de coopération effective imposant au fgou -
vernement contractant de s’enquérir des vues et intérêts des autres parties
et d’en tenir compte avant de délivrer ou de renouveler un permis fspécial;

15. Considérant que, conformément à l’alinéa d) du paragraphe 2 de l’ar -
ticle 82 du Règlement, la Nouvelle-Zélande a joint à sa déclaration un bor-
dereau des documents soumis à l’appui de celle-ci, lesquels y sont annexé;s

*

16. Considérant que l’Australie indique, dans ses observations écriftes,
qu’elle estime que la déclaration d’intervention de la Nouvelle-Zélande

répond aux conditions énoncées à l’article 63 du Statut et à l’article 82 du
Règlement, et que ladite déclaration est en conséquence recevabfle;
17. Considérant que le Japon, dans ses observations écrites, bien qu’fil
n’objecte pas à la recevabilité de la déclaration d’intervention de la Nou -
velle-Zélande, appelle l’attention de la Cour sur « certaines anomalies graves
qu’entraînerait l’admission de la Nouvelle-Zélande en qualité d’Etat interve -

nant»; que le Japon souligne la nécessité d’assurer l’égalité entre les Parties
devant la Cour, à la lumière du communiqué de presse conjoint dfes ministres
des affaires étrangères de l’Australie et de la Nouvelle-Zélande en date du
15 décembre 2010; que le Japon se dit par ailleurs inquiet à l’idée que l’Aufs -
tralie et la Nouvelle-Zélande pourraient «contourner certaines des mesures

visant à protéger l’égalité procédurale prévue par fle Statut et le Règlement
de la Cour », notamment celles prévues au paragraphe 5 de l’article 31 du
Statut et au paragraphe 1 de l’article 36 du Règlement, qui écartent la pos -
sibilité de désigner un juge ad hoc lorsque deux ou plusieurs parties font
cause commune et que la Cour compte sur le siège un juge ayant la natfiona -

lité de l’une ou l’autre de ces parties; et que le Japon demande, à la lumière
de ce qui précède, premièrement, que les Parties soient autorisées à répondre
par écrit aux observations écrites que la Nouvelle-Zélande pourrait présen -
ter en conformité avec le paragraphe 1 de l’article 86 du Règlement, deuxi-è
mement, que le temps alloué à la Nouvelle-Zélande dans le cadre de la
procédure orale sur le fond soit «bien inférieur à celui qui lui serait accordé

dans le cas d’une intervention au titre de l’article 62 » et, troisièmement,
qu’un délai suffisant soit accordé au Japon pour préparer sfes plaidoiries en
l’espèce, tant au premier qu’au second tour de la procédure fora;le

* *

9

4 CIJ1041.indb 15 3/03/14 10:42 9 whaling in the antarcftic (order 6 II 13)

18. Whereas the concerns expressed by Japan relate to certain proce -
dural issues regarding the equality of the Parties to the dispute, rathefr

than to the conditions for admissibility of the Declaration of Interven -
tion, as set out in Article 63 of the Statute and Article 82 of the Rules of
Court; whereas intervention under Article 63 of the Statute is limited to
submitting observations on the construction of the convention in ques -
tion and does not allow the intervenor, which does not become a party tof
the proceedings, to deal with any other aspect of the case before the

Court; and whereas such an intervention cannot affect the equality of the
Parties to the dispute ;
19. Whereas New Zealand has met the requirements set out in Article82
of the Rules of Court ; whereas its Declaration of Intervention falls within
the provisions of Article 63 of the Statute ; whereas, moreover, the Parties

raised no objection to the admissibility of the Declaration; and whereas it
follows that New Zealand’s Declaration of Intervention is admissible;
20. Whereas, in exercising its right to intervene in the case, New Zea -
land will be bound, under Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute, by the
construction of the Convention given by the Court in its judgment ;

* *
21. Whereas the question of the participation in the case of the judge

ad hoc chosen by Australia was referred to by the Respondent in the con -
text of the latter’s discussion of the equality of the Parties before the
Court; whereas the Court considers that it must make clear in the present
Order that, since the intervention of New Zealand does not confer upon
it the status of party to the proceedings, Australia and New Zealand can -
not be regarded as being “parties in the same interest” within thef meaning

of Article 31, paragraph 5, of the Statute ; whereas, consequently, the
presence on the Bench of a judge of the nationality of the intervening
State has no effect on the right of the judge ad hoc chosen by the Appli -
cant to sit in the case pursuant to Article 31, paragraph 2, of the Statute ;

* *

22. Whereas copies of the pleadings and documents annexed, as filed
in the case at present, have already been communicated to New Zealand,
on its request, pursuant to Article 53, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court ;

whereas, pursuant to Article 86 of the Rules of Court, it is necessary to fix
the time-limit for the filing of written observations of New Zealand with
respect to the subject-matter of the intervention ; and whereas the Court,
taking into account the request expressed by Japan that the Parties be
given an opportunity to file written observations on those written obserf -
vations filed by New Zealand, and considering the circumstances of the

case, finds that the request should be granted ;

*
* *

10

4 CIJ1041.indb 16 3/03/14 10:42 chasse à la baleine dfans l’antarctique (orfdonnance 6 II 13) 9

18. Considérant que les préoccupations exprimées par le Japon
concernent certaines questions procédurales relatives à l’égalité entre les

Parties au différend, et non les conditions de recevabilité de lf’intervention,
énoncées à l’article 63 du Statut et à l’article 82 du Règlement de la Cour ;
que l’intervention au titre de l’article 63 du Statut se limite à la présenta -
tion d’observations au sujet de l’interprétation de la convention concer -
née et ne permet pas à l’intervenant, qui n’acquiert pas la fqualité de partie
au différend, d’aborder quelque autre aspect que ce soit de l’faffaire dont

est saisie la Cour ; et qu’une telle intervention ne peut pas compromettre
l’égalité entre les Parties au différend ;
19. Considérant que la Nouvelle-Zélande a satisfait aux conditions énon -
cées à l’article 82 du Règlement ; que sa déclaration d’intervention entre
dans les prévisions de l’article 63 du Statut ; que, par ailleurs, les Parties

n’ont pas élevé d’objection à la recevabilité de la défclarati;ont qu’il s’ensuit
que la déclaration d’intervention de la Nouvelle-Zélande est recevabl;e
20. Considérant que, en exerçant son droit d’intervenir en l’espfèce, la
Nouvelle-Zélande sera liée, aux termes du paragraphe 2 de l’article 63 du
Statut, par l’interprétation de la convention qui sera retenue parf la Cour
dans son arrêt ;

* *
21. Considérant que la question de la participation à l’affaire dfu juge

ad hoc désigné par l’Australie a été évoquée par le défendeur dans le
contexte de la discussion par celui-ci de l’égalité des Parties devant la
Cour; que la Cour estime devoir préciser dans la présente ordonnance
que, l’intervention de la Nouvelle-Zélande ne lui conférant pas la qualité
de partie au différend, l’Australie et la Nouvelle-Zélande ne sauraient être
considérées comme des « parties [faisant] cause commune » au sens du

paragraphe 5 de l’article 31 du Statut ; que, en conséquence, la présence
sur le siège d’un juge de la nationalité de l’Etat intervenafnt est sans inci -
dence sur le droit du juge ad hoc désigné par le demandeur de siéger en
l’affaire conformément au paragraphe 2 de l’article 31 du Statut ;

* *

22. Considérant que des copies des pièces de procédure et documentsf y
annexés qui ont été déposés dans la présente affairef ont d’ores et déjà été
transmises à la Nouvelle-Zélande, à sa demande, conformément au para -

graphe 1 de l’article 53 du Règlement; que, en application de l’article 86 du
Règlement, il y a lieu de fixer la date d’expiration du délai pfour le dépôt,
par la Nouvelle-Zélande, d’observations écrites sur l’objet de l’intervenftio ;n
et que la Cour, tenant compte de la demande du Japon tendant à ce quef les
Parties soient autorisées à présenter des observations écrites en réponse à
celles qu’aura déposées la Nouvelle-Zélande, ainsi que des circonstances de

l’espèce, conclut qu’il y a lieu d’accéder à cette demfand;e

*
* *

10

4 CIJ1041.indb 17 3/03/14 10:42 10 whaling in the antarcftic (order 6 II 13)

23. For these reasons,

The Court,

(1) Unanimously,

Decides that the Declaration of Intervention filed by New Zealand,
pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute, is admissible ;

(2) Unanimously,

Fixes 4 April 2013 as the time-limit for the filing by New Zealand of the
written observations referred to in Article 86, paragraph 1, of the Rules
of Court ;

(3) Unanimously,

Authorizes the filing by Australia and Japan of written observations on
these written observations of New Zealand and fixes 31 May 2013 as the
time-limit for such filing ;

Reserves the subsequent procedure for further decision.

Done in English and in French, the English text being authoritative, at f
the Peace Palace, The Hague, this sixth day of February, two thousand
and thirteen, in four copies, one of which will be placed in the archivefs of
the Court and the others transmitted to the Government of Australia, the
Government of Japan and the Government of New Zealand, respectively.

(Signed) Peter Tomka,
President.

(Signed) Philippe Couvreur,

Registrar.

Judge Owada appends a declaration to the Order of the Court ; Judge
Cançado Trindade appends a separate opinion to the Order of the
Court ; JudgeGaja appends a declaration to the Order of the Court.

(Initialled) P.T.
(Initialled) Ph.C.

11

4 CIJ1041.indb 18 3/03/14 10:42 chasse à la baleine dfans l’antarctique (orfdonnance 6 II 13) 10

23. Par ces motifs,

La Cour,

1) A l’unanimité,

Dit que la déclaration d’intervention, déposée par la Nouvelle-Zélande
au titre du paragraphe 2 de l’article 63 du Statut, est recevable ;

2) A l’unanimité,

Fixe au 4 avril 2013 la date d’expiration du délai pour le dépôt par la
Nouvelle-Zélande des observations écrites prévues au paragraphe 1 de
l’article 86 du Règlement ;

3) A l’unanimité,

Autorise le dépôt, par l’Australie et le Japon, d’observations écfrites sur
celles présentées par la Nouvelle-Zélande, et fixe au 31 mai 2013 la date
d’expiration du délai à cet effet ;

Réserve la suite de la procédure.

Fait en anglais et en français, le texte anglais faisant foi, au Palafis de la
Paix, à La Haye, le six février deux mille treize, en quatre exempflaires,
dont l’un restera déposé aux archives de la Cour et les autres fseront trans
mis respectivement au Gouvernement de l’Australie, au Gouvernement
du Japon et au Gouvernement de la Nouvelle-Zélande.

Le président,
(Signé) Peter Tomka.

Le greffier,

(Signé) Philippe Couvreur.

M. le juge Owada joint une déclaration à l’ordonnance ; M. le juge
Cançado Trindade joint à l’ordonnance l’exposé de son opinion indivi -
duelle; M. le juge Gaja joint une déclaration à l’ordonnance.

(Paraphé) P.T.
(Paraphé) Ph.C.

11

4 CIJ1041.indb 19 3/03/14 10:42

ICJ document subtitle

Declaration of Intervention by New Zealand

Document file FR
Document Long Title

Order of 6 February 2013

Links